Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[jaydeehess]

if a poster can list evidence that another poster is continually lieing about his credentials then such an accusation should not result in a ban

same would apply if the accusation was of any other type

 

[sts60]

I don't recall, since the departure of Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc., that anyone has impugned anyone else's credentials. (P1k/fd/DT/etc. continually contradicted his own resume claims, so he was unquestionably lying even before addressing his manifest deficiencies in various areas.)

As far as I can tell, FF88 isn't claiming any particular expertise - I've certainly said he has no relevant expertise, and invited him to correct that characterization. Nor, AFAIK, has he tried to say, for example, I don't have the credentials I claim.

What he has done is try to say that every expert who disagrees with him is lying. I called him on it, and he finally conceded the point by failing to provide any evidence for his claim. So I've moved on, and will ignore any attempts by him to try to resurrect that particular accusation - unless he actually offers some evidence to back it up.

Speaking of which, FatFreddy88, why do you think someone like me, with quite a bit of relevant expertise, disagrees with someone like you, with no relevant expertise? What does that tell you, that I both understand space flight and I believe Apollo really happened? Put aside your reflexive denial for a minute and think.

 

[Erock]

Speaking of which, FatFreddy88, why do you think someone like me, with quite a bit of relevant expertise, disagrees with someone like you, with no relevant expertise? What does that tell you, that I both understand space flight and I believe Apollo really happened? Put aside your reflexive denial for a minute and think.

Is that the P1k "Appeal to Reason^TM"?

 

[Jim_MDP]

Is that the P1k "Appeal to Reason^TM"?

Ha! My current sig has Pat's "appeal to reason".

Edit to include it as I may change it sometime and it must not be forgotten...

"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.

 

[Erock]

Ha! My current sig has Pat's "appeal to reason".

Edit to include it as I may change it sometime and it must not be forgotten...

"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.

Yes, truly a classic. But this was the one I meant, also stundied.....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7632049&postcount=3833

"Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason jive line Jay".

 

[Jim_MDP]

Agreed. Like Lays... he's so over the top, it's hard to pick just one.

 

[nomuse]

Ha! My current sig has Pat's "appeal to reason".

Edit to include it as I may change it sometime and it must not be forgotten...

"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.

That made me think of the great Interdimensional Warrior essay on Falsifiability:

If a theory is falsifiable, it by definition IS false, but then I wouldnt expect you to understand this simple logic. If you CAN prove it false, it is, and if you cannot, it MIGHT not be. One thing is for sure, you are ***backwards, boy.

This is why I love the hoax believers. They get so far on the other side of "Wrong" they begin to construct a Looking Glass world with an entirely new set of logical laws.

 

[R.A.F.]

As far as I can tell, FF88 isn't claiming any particular expertise...

As far as I can tell, FF88 has not DEMONSTRATED any expertise...

 

[FatFreddy88]

Originally Posted by FatFreddy88
The movement of the tip of the flag is perfectly consistent with the atmosphere explanation. If you think that's not so, tell us how it would have moved in atmosphere.
-----------------------------------------------
Listen very carefully....


The Apollo missions are established historical FACT. The onus is on you, NOT US...we don't have to prove anything to you, so stop demanding that we do.

Do you understand?

Translation-

It's so obvious that the movement of the flag is consistent with the atmosphere explanation that I'd better just try to sidestep the question.

Come on you people. This is a perfectly legitimate question. Any truth-seeker would just answer the question. If the movement of the flag is not consistent with the vibration explanation and it's obvious that the astronaut didn't touch it and it is consistent with the atmosphere explanation, you should modify your positions.

 

[BazBear]

Freddy, "truth seekers" have answered your questions. People with real credentials, expertise, and experience in spaceflight engineering and other related fields have answered your questions ad nauseum. Just because you think the flag movement looks like evidence of an atmosphere does not make it so. Whether it was caused by the astronaut brushing against it, or vibration from him running by it, doesn't really matter either. We have a mountain of solid evidence that this video was shot on the moon, and we have no legitimate evidence to the contrary. If anyone should modify their position, it is certainly you.

 

[realpaladin]

Translation-

It's so obvious that the movement of the flag is consistent with the atmosphere explanation that I'd better just try to sidestep the question.

Come on you people. This is a perfectly legitimate question. Any truth-seeker would just answer the question. If the movement of the flag is not consistent with the vibration explanation and it's obvious that the astronaut didn't touch it and it is consistent with the atmosphere explanation, you should modify your positions.

This means you did the experiment then?

 

[dafydd]

Translation-

It's so obvious that the movement of the flag is consistent with the atmosphere explanation that I'd better just try to sidestep the question.

Come on you people. This is a perfectly legitimate question. Any truth-seeker would just answer the question. If the movement of the flag is not consistent with the vibration explanation and it's obvious that the astronaut didn't touch it and it is consistent with the atmosphere explanation, you should modify your positions.

Watch and learn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmNz2-IS7gY

 

[FatFreddy88]

You people are tap dancing around my request instead of addressing it. If this were a debating hall, the audience would be roaring with laughter at you right now. Please address the issue I raised.

Your position is that the flag didn't move because of air so tell us how it would move if air made it move. How would it be different?

We have a mountain of solid evidence that this video was shot on the moon, and we have no legitimate evidence to the contrary.

I posted some strong evidence to the contrary in this post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

Click on the bottom link.

 

[Garrison]

You people are tap dancing around my request instead of addressing it. If this were a debating hall, the audience would be roaring with laughter at you right now. Please address the issue I raised.

Sorry FatFreddy88 you no longer get to claim there is some magic invisible audience on your side, the poll stood at 240-0 the last time I looked, you are utterly alone. The crowd isn't laughing with you, its laughing at you.

Your position is that the flag didn't move because of air so tell us how it would move if air made it move. How would it be different?

You might get some support if you stopped trying to shift the burden of proof, though I wouldn't bet on it.

I posted some strong evidence to the contrary in this post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

Click on the bottom link.

No you posted some cherry picked video in the hopes that people will ignore the rest that was clearly shot in zero gee/vacuum. You case comes down to demanding others treat your ill-informed opinion as fact and simply ignoring all rebuttals. No one is buying it FatFreddy, you haven't persuaded one other member of this board to support your view.

 

[R.A.F.]

You people are tap dancing around my request instead of addressing it. If this were a debating hall, the audience would be roaring with laughter at you right now. Please address the issue I raised.

Laughing?...who is laiughing?....240 - 0, and who is laughing?

Your position is that the flag didn't move because of air so tell us how it would move if air made it move. How would it be different?

Why do you think we have to prove you wrong?....what is it about the burden of proof that you think you can ignore?

 

[R.A.F.]

I posted some strong evidence to the contrary in this post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

Click on the bottom link.

Linking to your ignorant posts is not evidence....not even close....you should be ashamed of yourself for trying such an obvious "gag".

 

[threadworm]

Translation-

It's so obvious that the movement of the flag is consistent with the atmosphere explanation that I'd better just try to sidestep the question.

Come on you people. This is a perfectly legitimate question. Any truth-seeker would just answer the question. If the movement of the flag is not consistent with the vibration explanation and it's obvious that the astronaut didn't touch it and it is consistent with the atmosphere explanation, you should modify your positions.

It isn't. The one thing it absolutely isn't consistent with is the effect of an atmosphere.

 

[R.A.F.]

Translation-

It's so obvious that the movement of the flag is consistent with the atmosphere explanation that I'd better just try to sidestep the question.

Bull crap....you don't understand (or choose to ignore) the burden of proof....STOP THAT NOW.

Come on you people.

Are you leaving?

This is a perfectly legitimate question. Any truth-seeker would just answer the question.

More crap....You are not a "truth seeker", you are a Moon hoax proponent...ans you start from the assumption that the landings were faked....therefore your "question" is irrelevant.

If the movement of the flag is not consistent with the vibration explanation and it's obvious that the astronaut didn't touch it and it is consistent with the atmosphere explanation, you should modify your positions.

You begin with a false premise....why do you think we would "fall" for that.


It's as Jay posted earlier...how stupid do you think we are??

 

[R.A.F.]

Translation-

It's so obvious that the movement of the flag is consistent with the atmosphere explanation that I'd better just try to sidestep the question.

Oh, and that is not what I posted at all....don't put words in my mouth ever again.

 

[R.A.F.]

...you haven't persuaded one other member of this board to support your view.

Please acknowledge this FACT before posting again, freddy....you seem to get "forgetful" unless constantly reminded.